PMLA bail restrictions remain strict: prolonged custody, medical pleas and parity did not overcome the twin conditions for release.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prolonged pre-trial custody and general delay in trial do not by themselves justify bail where the statutory rigour of Section 45 continues to apply. The text states that serious allegations of laundering proceeds of crime, substantial progress in investigation, and filing of the prosecution complaint weighed against release. It also notes that the twin bail conditions were not met because material collected in investigation, including statements, documents and the alleged money trail, indicated a key role in the offence and the Section 24 presumption operated against the applicant. Medical and parity-based pleas were also treated as insufficient where treatment could be provided in custody.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in trial notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether, on the materials collected in the investigation and the applicant's medical and parity-based pleas, the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 stood satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in trial notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The plea of delay and Article 21-based speedy trial rights was considered against the special bail regime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that economic offences involving proceeds of crime are to be viewed seriously and that mere passage of time in custody does not by itself dilute the statutory requirements for release. The investigation had substantially progressed, the prosecution complaint had been filed, and the case involved serious allegations of organised collection and laundering of crime proceeds. In that backdrop, prolonged incarceration alone was found insufficient to override the statutory restrictions.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail on the ground of delay or prolonged custody.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the materials collected in the investigation and the applicant's medical and parity-based pleas, the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 stood satisfied.

Analysis: The Court found substantial material indicating the applicant's role as a key conspirator and beneficiary of the alleged proceeds of crime, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, documentary material and the alleged money trail. It held that the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 operated against the applicant and that the twin conditions for bail were not satisfied. The medical plea was rejected because the record did not show a serious ailment warranting release when treatment could be provided in custody. The parity and selective-prosecution objections were also not accepted as sufficient to overcome the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The twin conditions for bail were not satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to release on medical or parity grounds.

Final Conclusion: The application for regular bail was held to be untenable under the special bail framework governing money-laundering offences, and custodial release was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prolonged custody or a general plea of delay does not by itself justify release unless the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; medical relief is available only when adequate treatment cannot be secured in custody.

---